Supreme Court grants bail to man in UAPA case; says 'bail is rule' even for special statutes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to a 61-year-old former cop booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for being an active member of Popular Front of India (PFI) and allegedly conspiring to cause bloodshed and establish Islamic rule in India [Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India]..A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih emphasised that the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' applies even with respect to offences under special statutes like UAPA. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law...Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution", the Court said. Even if the allegations against the accused are serious, courts have the duty to grant bail when the conditions laid down under the law for grant of bail are satisfied. "When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law," the Bench stated..The primary case against the appellant and another co-accused was that the appellant had rented the upper floor of his place to the co-accused and they were planning to create disturbances during the visit of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Bihar in 2022. However, before they could cause any disturbance, the police apprehended them and they were booked for criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity. During the search, the police had retrieved documents from them relating to unlawful activities aimed at disrupting the sovereignty of India and to cause disaffection against the country and for establishing pan-Islamic rule in India by subverting the Constitution.Considering the nature and gravity of the matter, the case was taken over by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) and the accused were booked under UAPA.Pending trial, both the appellant and co-accused had sought bail before the Special Court but the same was rejected. Aggrieved, they moved the Patna High Court for bail which eventually granted bail to the co-accused but rejected the bail plea of the appellant.Challenging the rejection, the appellant moved the apex court for bail.The Supreme Court allowed the same today. .It noted that the courts below might have been swayed by the activities of PFI."The Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated."Pertinently, it noted that no case under UAPA was made out since PFI was not a banned organisation during the relevant time. "We find that the PFI is not a terrorist organisation, as is evident from the first schedule. On plain reading of the charge sheet, it is not possible to record a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences punishable under the UAPA is prima facie true."It underscored that the NIA probe needs to be fair, in the context of discrepancies in the chargsheet regarding a witness account."The material portion of witness Z's actual statement has been completely distorted in paragraph 17.16 of the charge sheet. Several things which protected witness Z did not state have been incorporated ... NIA owes an explanation for that. The investigating machinery has to be fair. But, in this case, paragraph 17.16 indicates to the contrary."The accused was, thus, directed to be produced before the special court within a week to be released on bail.."We make it clear that the tentative findings recorded in this judgment are only for considering the prayer for bail. The reasons are confined to the case of the appellant. The same will have no bearing on the trial and cases of the co-accused," the Court clarified..Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta with advocates Shaikh Saipan Dastgir, Rizwan Ahmad, Nitya Gupta, Shakeel Ahmed, Paras Nath Singh and Himanshu Gupta appeared for the accused.Additional Solicitor Aishwarya Bhati with advocates Mrigank Pathak, Rajat Nair, Shagun Thakur, Chitrangda Rastvara, Neelakshi Bhadauria and Arvind Kumar Sharma appeared for the NIA..[Read Judgment]